[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080603130709.fcf6a751.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:07:09 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk>
Cc: dhazelton@...er.net, jdike@...toit.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] UML - Deal with host time going backwards
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:52:18 +0100
Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk> wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2008, Daniel Hazelton said:
>
> > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:32:11 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:02:35 -0400
> >>
> >> Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com> wrote:
> >> > Protection against the host's time going backwards - keep track of the
> >> > time at the last tick and if it's greater than the current time, keep
> >> > time stopped until the host catches up.
> >>
> >> Strange. What would cause the host's time (or at least UML's perception
> >> of it) to go backwards?
> >
> > A wild guess would be that the UML process is running "fast" at some point and
> > its expectation of the host's time is skewed forward because of that.
>
> Quite so. Simply running ntp on the host (in slew-only mode, no less!)
> can cause this.
>
> > Another possibility is that the hosts clock got reset between the times UML
> > has checked it and the correction was a negative one.
>
> That too.
>
So if I change the host's time by an hour, the time will not advance at all
on the guest for the next hour? Sounds suboptimal :)
I suppose the guest should be running an ntp client synced to something
sane anyway?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists